Dang, tell me somebody here won this auction (Misidentified '16 Walker) Updated on Pg 3
FadeToBlack
Posts: 7,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
Seller called it a Philly, it's clearly a San Fran.... real nice coin, imho.
Linky
At least they didn't steal it thanks to my last second bid. Was really hoping I'd be able to snag it for $300 or so.
Linky
At least they didn't steal it thanks to my last second bid. Was really hoping I'd be able to snag it for $300 or so.
0
Comments
Joe.
Edit: I guess I should have remembered the obverse mintmark!
probalby didn't know it is an obv S
.
That clip is a rim ding in my eye.
Here is another auction from the same seller, 1831 looks a little "too good to be true?"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Don't see it as that much of a rip priced about right as the other three are just so-so coins.
That clip is a rim ding in my eye. >>
The 16-s is the only one w/o rim dings.
It may be perfectly fine, I don't know. I know that I scanned the image with my Eschenbach, especially the mint mark, which looks a little fishy (but it may just be the crust around it) and couldn't find anything obviously wrong, but that's a coin I'd want to see in hand before shelling out my money for it.
<< <i>... or the "1916S" could possiby be fake?
Here is another auction from the same seller, 1831 looks a little "too good to be true?" >>
That thought did occur to me when I looked at the 1916-S.
Just idly speculating, selling one high grade counterfeit camoflagued by three common, average circulated coins might cause some people to think they are finding a treasure unrecognized by the seller.
If indeed the 1916-S and the 1831 are counterfeit.
I have bought a lot of groups of walkers over the counter, you never see dates like this 16-s in such nice condition mixed in with common ol dates, unless of course a set comes in or its already identified, not saying it cant happen, but seems unlikely.
<< <i> That thought did occur to me when I looked at the 1916-S. Just idly speculating, selling one high grade counterfeit camoflagued by three common, average circulated coins might cause some people to think they are finding a treasure unrecognized by the seller. If indeed the 1916-S and the 1831 are counterfeit. >>
I agree 100% with this - especially since the seller seemed to go out of his way to advertise it as a P mint coin .... It effectively lowers the radar of the buyer and changes the perspective from looking for red flags and wondering what they are missing to excited anticipation of ripping from the unwitting ... The fact that there are 2 separate lots of 4 coins with each lot containing one significantly higher valued coin is all the evidence I need to see. How often does one sell a coin worth several hundred or more mixed in with other coins valued at or near spot silver... Pretty effective set up IMO (results speak for themselves)
<< <i>Yes, looks like it sold for 'all the money', or nearly so, anyway.....and color me skeptical, but I also think the appearance of that 16S isn't quite right.
It may be perfectly fine, I don't know. I know that I scanned the image with my Eschenbach, especially the mint mark, which looks a little fishy (but it may just be the crust around it) and couldn't find anything obviously wrong, but that's a coin I'd want to see in hand before shelling out my money for it. >>
My first reaction was the same as yours -- that mintmark looks suspect in the smallish photos. If it is an added mintmark, the seller gave an accurate description, right?
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
It takes only two to drive up the price.
<< <i>... or the "1916S" could possiby be fake? >>
The 9 on the ebay coin looks almost closed where the 9 on a Coinfacts coin is open. However, the EBay pic isn't clear enough for me to tell whether or not the 16-S is genuine.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
<< <i>
<< <i>... or the "1916S" could possiby be fake? >>
The 9 on the ebay coin looks almost closed where the 9 on a Coinfacts coin is open. However, the EBay pic isn't clear enough for me to tell whether or not the 16-S is genuine. >>
I couldn't tell either. It just looked vaguely suspicious.
<< <i>... or the "1916S" could possiby be fake?
Here is another auction from the same seller, 1831 looks a little "too good to be true?" >>
I agree with you. I just saw this thread a minute ago. The 1916-S jumped out at me immediately as a FAKE. Unless there is some sort of photo anomaly happening, it is clearing a fake.
The seller's 1831 half looks genuine...just cleaned.
As for the 1916-S, the details in the date area are too strong compared to other details of the coin, such as the rays, Liberty's gown by the legend, etc.
Where I work, we see many fakes each week and it is only getting worse. Had a deal come in today that was 25% counterfeit. All gold coins. Some quite good, I should add. Sadly the seller knew the coins were fake. He said that he just wanted confirmation. Yah, sure. Do you think that he would have told us the coins were fake if we made an offer to purchase them?
I can't believe anyone would fall for one of the oldest tricks in the book with this auction. Greed is the only thing that ran that up. NO WAY that seller doesn't know what he has, and at the best, it will be a problem coin of some sort that was bought cheap, cracked out, and mixed in with some junk to really make it stand out.
One born every minute, even those who frequent here, and should know better!
XF45 with possible AU50 slabbed in that coin's future.
peacockcoins
Bob
<< <i>The seller is a jeweler and probably not a full time coin person. They most likely just dabble in coins that come in exchange or collateral for jewelry or are possibly selling them for someone else. I cannot comment on the authenticity of the 1916-S or 1831 or the 1814 bust half in another auction. They have to be examined more closely. Either way, the buyers did not get a cherrypick worth more then what they paid even if they are genuine. IMHO, worth the gamble if these are what you want since you can return them. The return policy lead me the to opinion above. Jewelers, pawn shops, local auctioneers, and even some coin dealers miss details like this all the time. I cannot tell you all the times that some local yocal auctioneers miss mintmarks especially on liberty seated coins and most likely"O" mint marks.
Bob >>
These guys deal in coins regularly. They advertise often about buying coins.
Edited to say: I live about 10 miles from their store and I see their ads on a regular basis.
<< <i>Both the bust half and this 16-S are genuine and the bidder on the four Walkers got an excellent deal.
XF45 with possible AU50 slabbed in that coin's future. >>
Hmm, not sure about that - I sold two 16S walkers in NGC 45 holders at FUN, for under $500 each, and they both looked
better than this coin, and the buyer is into this one at ~$580. But maybe my buyers just got an even better deal
We see a lot of cast counterfeits and the 1916-S half on eBay jumped out immediately to me as being bogus. The molds are usually made with a genuine host coin, so all of the main details are in the right place. It is the fine detail where things fall apart. Small devices (such as the date) will not always transfer well, so the mold maker will retool those areas, and if not paying close attention to detail, mistakes are made. Overall, when one starts strengthening a die in certain areas, but not others, there is an incongruity in the look. Notice how some areas are sharp, while adjacent areas are nearly missing.
thought they found a mistake in their favor.
Like WC Fields said, "you can't cheat an honest man."
peacockcoins
<< <i>Somebody should contact the winner, just in case... >>
Hello! I am calling to inform you that your 1916 Half Dollar is fake. To file a Complaint, please call 1-800-ebay-sux.
<< <i>I saw the auction and didn't bid because the 1916 S looked like a Chinese reproduction I saw several months ago at a show. >>
Well, you saved yourself about $600 because it's bad, and the lucky winner is about to find that out for him/herself.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Also , was there only 1 obverse die pairing for the "S"? Otherwise how could you go by mintmark location? Its definitely appreciated but I've seen so many coins on ebay that look 90% something and once in hand, laughable.
RAD#306
I think its hard to determine almost anything by blurry pics of a worn coin. The brain sees what it wants to see, and things get way distorted with angles, zooming , blurry pics to start with etc.
I agree, and I stated something similar in my post. The seller's images are terrible. Ebay has a new rule that pictures have to be 500 X 500 pixels (or something like that). I think that is a good rule. At least that is what they told us for our Platinum Powerseller account. Not sure if it is required for all eBay sellers.
In the case of the 16-S half posted here, it just does not look right. The numbers/letters are too rounded. Hard to explain, but if you have seen enough counterfeits, then you just get that immediate feeling when you see one.
Did anyone contact the winning bidder? Maybe he/she could post high resolution photos here?
<< <i>Coin shows luster although it is somewhat subdued and I wouldn't call it brilliant. I would feel comfortable with an AU53 grade, but of course that's just my opinion. Color looks pretty good, but it has possibly been lightly cleaned. Weight is correct, mint mark looks good, I don't see any evidence of a molding line on the edge, and the detail appears to be accurate. I believe it to be genuine, but I'm going to send it to ANACS just to be safe. >>
These are his pics:
I'm not seeing anything in those pictures that particularly bothers me. I think that a lot of the earlier comments read too much into the original poor pics...
Jonathanb, could you please ask the buyer for a higher resolution photo of the obverse (date area).
It does look much better though. However, the date still seems "off." Take a close look. Once again, it could be due to the low resolution of the new photo that the buyer provided.
Close up of date area using buyer's new photo. The image below is a PCGS XF details.
RAD#306
<< <i>Nicer pics from the new seller, doesn't look like a fake to me, but I'm not an expert... >>
PCGS: Please redact my mea culpa!
peacockcoins
The serifs on the first 1 shows bars at the bottom in the coin in question, while every other slabbed 1916-S I have seen shows a stub. This could be pixilation artifacts, but I would not want to risk what the purchaser paid. (plus added expense to ANACS, ... )